Loranthus cucullaris Lam. in J. Hist. Nat. 1: 444. June 1792.

– Psittacanthus cucullaris (Lam.) Blume in Schultes & Schultes F., Syst. Veg. 7(2): 1730. 1830 [nom. nud.].

≡ Psittacanthus cucullaris (Lam.) G. Don, Gen. Hist. 3:416. 1834.

≡ Apodina cucullaris (Lam.) Tiegh. in Bull. Soc. Bot. France 42: 353. 1895.

Lectotypus (designated here): French Guiana: sine loc., 1792, J. B. Leblond s.n. (P-LAM [P00381778] image seen; isolecto-: P-LAM [P00381777] image seen, G [G00308092] image seen).

≡ Loranthus bracteatus Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 107. October 1792.

Typus: French Guiana: sine loc., 1792, J. B. Leblond s.n. (holo-: G [G00308092] image seen).

Notes. – Loranthus cucullaris was described in the First volume oF the “Journal d’Histoire Naturelle” by LAMARCK (1792: 444) on June 15th 1792 (Gandhi, pers. comm.) based on a plant From “Cayennas” [French Guiana] collected by Leblond. No specimens oF Leblond were Found in the general herbarium at P but two specimens [P00381777, P00381778] identified as L. cucullaris were Found in the historical Lamarck herbarium (P-LAM). Ŋese specimens are clearly annotated as collected in French Guiana by Leblond. Ŋese specimens Further include drawings that are similar to the illustration published by LAMARCK (1792: tab. 23).

RICHARD (1792) described L. bracteatus in the same year based on a Leblond collection From “Cayennas”. Richard’s main herbarium is deposited at P and several Leblond specimens were acquired when the Franqueville and Drake del Castillo herbaria were incorporated into P and are now in the general P herbarium but according to STAFLEU & COwAN (1983: 764), the botanical specimens collected by Leblond and described by Richard are now deposited at G through the Ventenat herbarium bought by Benjamin Delessert in 1809 (STAFLEU & COwAN, 1983: 700). One specimen Found at G collected by Leblond in French Guiana is identiFied as L. bracteatus [G00308092]. This collection bears a label reFerring to the number “221” but Further investigations at G show that this numbering is clearly “post Facto” and has nothing to do with Leblond (Callmander, pers. comm.) and will thereFore be here reFerred to as Leblond s.n.

Besides the evidence From the putative type specimen, the diagnoses are also remarkably similar. It is now clear that both names were based on the same material, collected in French Guiana by Leblond but very likely not on the same duplicates and thereFore both validly published. Since the specimens were first shipped to Paris to the members oF the “Société Botanique de Paris”, Lamarck and Richard, both members, probably described a species in the same genus independently. Since both were published in the same year, the next task was to establish precedence. Ŋe first volume oF the “Actes de La Société d’Histoire Naturelle de Paris” was published in October 1792 (STAFLEU, 1963). Ŋis establishes precedence oF L. cucullaris over L. bracteatus.

In his treatment oF Psittacanthus cucullaris, the currently accepted name For both Loranthus cucullaris and L. bracteatus, KUIJT (2007: 46; 2009: 139) designated the neotype Lindeman et al. 651 in the absence oF the Leblond collection at P. It is curious that the neotype was designated two times, respectively at US in 2007 and NY in 2009. Although we believe that Lindeman et al. 651 clearly represents our species, locating the original type specimen supersedes Kuijt’s neotypification. In Fact, it is arguable iF neotypification was necessary in the first place, in view oF the excellence oF the illustration in which all the diagnostic characters were clear.

As we are considering that the specimens used by RICHARD (1792) and LAMARCK (1792) are duplicates From the same collection, we designated the P-LAM specimen [P00381778] as the lectotype and consider the other sheet deposited at P-LAM [P00381777] and the one at G as isolectotypes oF L. cucullaris. Ŋe latter collection [G00308092] should also be considered as the holotype oF L. bracteatus.